Climate Realism at GOP Convention: Still a Still, Small Voice, but Still..

July 19, 2016


Rob Sisson of ConservAmerica, left, discusses conservative approaches to clean energy at an event in conjunction with the Republican National Convention in Cleveland.

Rob Sisson is practically a neighbor, fellow Michigander, and a real nice, smart guy.
He’s trying to be a voice of reason in the most hostile environment imaginable.

Midwest Energy News:

Growing numbers of conservative voters agree the U.S. needs more clean energy, reported members of organizations at this week’s Republican National Convention in Cleveland. However, there’s little agreement on how government policies should pursue that goal.

Conservative interest in encouraging clean energy reflects voters’ growing concern about climate change, said Alicia Kolar Prevost of Defend Our Future. The organization partnered with Bloomberg Government to host a roundtable luncheon on Monday about the future of climate change conversations within the Republican Party.

A majority of Republicans — 56 percent — agree climate change is happening, according to a recent Yale/George Mason University survey referenced by Prevost. Supporters of presidential hopefuls still in the major party races at the time were more likely to vote for a candidate who supports taking action to reduce global warming, the report found.

“The polling is going to be critical going forward to show candidates that they need to come along,” said Rob Sisson, president of ConservAmerica.

“People in political office are sensitive to what brings in votes,” stressed Nan Hayworth, a former member of Congress from New York state and a director of ConservAmerica. “As electeds, we can’t be too far behind our districts. We can’t be too far ahead of our districts.”

Religion, hunting and prosperity

While conservative Republicans may not agree with Democrats’ policies, they share a range of concerns about climate change.

“First and foremost, it’s a moral issue,” said Rachel Lamb of Young Evangelicals for Climate Action. As she sees it, climate change is “negatively impacting people, as well as the environment, which we’re called to take care of by God.”

“God has given us a commandment to take care of our planet,” agreed Ash Mason of the Christian Coalition, referring to a passage in the book of Genesis.

“Clean tech is a pro-life issue,” Sisson added, noting that pollution from fossil fuel plants includes mercury, which can harm the brain and nervous system in developing children. A 2012 study found that 8 percent of newborns in the region near Lake Superior had unacceptable levels of mercury in their blood.

Sisson added that climate change makes droughts, floods and other extreme weather events that affect wildlife more likely. Climate change can also alter habitats or shift the range for different species. In Sisson’s view, the Republican Party risks “losing the hook-and-bullet crowd” if it doesn’t address climate change.

“You can’t take hunters and anglers for granted,” he said.

Policies to promote clean energy also appeal to conservatives’ commitment to competition and independence.

Cade Marsh of the College Republican National Committee noted that his home state of Florida has huge potential for solar energy. Yet the state is among the weakest on solar policy, including an effective ban on third-party financing for rooftop solar energy.

“We’ve been stonewalled by big money interests in the state,” Marsh said. As he sees it, conservatives are not against clean energy, “we’re just pro not being told what we have to do.”

Clean energy also promotes energy independence and national security, noted Angel Garcia of Young Conservatives for Energy Reform. “We’ve fought too many wars” over energy, he said.

“More people will be prosperous,” Hayworth added, noting the potential for jobs as the clean energy industry grows.

Clean energy is not just a domestic issue, said Jay Lifton of Cella Energy, a hydrogen storage company. “It’s an international issue” that affects the United States’ ability to compete worldwide, he said. “China is more into this than the U.S.”

‘Letting America down’

Right now, liberals control the agenda on climate change and clean energy, said Alex Bozmoski of republicEn, a community of “climate change realists” facilitated by the Energy and Enterprise Initiative at George Mason University. “We’re letting America down when we’re not competing and offering solutions.”

Most organization representatives at the Defend Our Future/Bloomberg event favor using tax incentives to spark investments in clean energy, such as the recently-extended Investment Tax Credit.

In other words, explained Sisson, have lower taxes on activities you want to promote and higher taxes on those you want to discourage.

But, Lifton said, some conservatives might hear talk about climate change and immediately worry that the next step would be a carbon tax.

“Which would be awesome,” in Bozmoski’s personal view. He did not believe Republican voters as a whole would accept a carbon tax, however.

Proponents of a carbon tax see it as a way to make the fossil fuel industry pay for environmental damage and other social costs caused by pollution. In economic terms, a carbon tax can also promote a “level playing field” for all forms of energy.

Others, including Garcia, favored removing subsidies and tax breaks for fossil fuels.

“We don’t like mandates,” Mason said. However, he said, a portfolio standard could be a good policy option if a state chose it and it allowed the state to determine the most effective combination of renewable energy and efficiency.

A federal program setting clean energy targets could also provide incentives for meeting those targets early. As Mason sees it, such rewards could promote a “race to the top” in clean energy.

God’s gift?

Despite a growing number of conservative clean energy supporters, the Republican platform adopted this week contains strong language favoring fossil fuels.

According to that document, “The Democratic Party does not understand that coal is an abundant, clean, affordable, reliable domestic energy resource.”

Speakers echoed that sentiment Monday night at an event hosted by the Young Conservatives for Energy Reform and the Christian Coalition.

“We’ve got some of the largest reserves of oil and gas in the world. We’ve got coal fields,” said Congressman Bill Johnson (R-Ohio).

“Folks, God did not call politicians to change anything,” Johnson said. “God put that fossil fuel in the Earth. We ought to be going after it. We ought to be using it.”

Nonetheless, conservatives should make sure that the Republican Party’s “all-of-the-above” policy really works towards that goal, said Keith den Hollander of the Christian Coalition. “We need to look at new energy resources.”


Two representatives from ConservAmerica will attend the Republican National Convention in Cleveland. Rob Sisson, president, and The Hon. Nan Hayworth, director, will be available for media interviews Monday through Thursday.

Sisson, former mayor of Sturgis, MI, has served as president of ConservAmerica since 2011. Hayworth, an ophthalmologist, served in the United States Congress from 2011-2012 representing New York’s 19th District.

To schedule an interview, please contact Elizabeth Sneed, Public Affairs Specialist, at esneed(at)


16 Responses to “Climate Realism at GOP Convention: Still a Still, Small Voice, but Still..”

  1. Dan Pangburn Says:

    Climate has always changed . . . naturally. The last change is it stopped warming.

    • greenman3610 Says:

      see you and Ted Cruz on the same tired page

      but even that old reliable lie is quite outdated now

    • webej Says:

      Yes. Just think of the Permian extinction event (all natural), but in fast forward for us impatient modern folk. And since man is part of nature, lacing the atmosphere with trifluoromethyl sulfur pentafluoride is as natural as using fire to cook your food. Come to think of it, what is more natural than disease, pestilence and murder.

    • schwadevivre Says:

      You don’t do much critical thinking do you?

      In fact I bet you think that “Critical Thinking” is being critical of people with whom you do not agree

      • @schwadevivre: You guys and your enslavement to psychological projection.

        “Global Warming’s Killer: Critical Thinking”

        Meanwhile, one other drive-by shot: I do love it how you fellows refuse to read any material opposing your own viewpoint, it always leaves you open to being blindsided. Say, for example, Naomi Oreskes’ assertion that Senator Inhofe attacked her during a speech for – her own words – “that I was part of the global conspiracy, the scientific conspiracy to bring down global capitalism.” Wouldn’t you guys like to have a framed copy of that speech, the one the reporter warned her about, on your wall with that bit highlighted?

        Hint. Indebted to Peter Sinclair for that inadvertent tipoff, by the way. Y’all should try listening and reading Oreskes’s stuff sometime, and chalk down the number of times when her stories don’t line up with each other.

        • Gingerbaker Says:

          Those were her “own words”?!?

          Thanks for the tip off, Russell. 🙂

          The vast global conspiracy, the scientific conspiracy to bring down global capitalism (V.G.C.T.S.C.T.B.D.G.C.) will not tolerate exposure of the V.G.C.T.S.C.T.B.D.G.C.

          Hit squad already on the way.

          You have done your country- and the millions of scoundrel scientists making money hand over fist at the expense of the beleaguered fossil fuel industry – a great service, Russell.

          Well done.

          • @Gingerbaker Says: “Those were ‘her own words’?!?”

            Yeh. Word-for-word, about what she said came from a speech from Senator Inhofe. Having short-term memory problems are you? Those words are verbatim out of Peter “greenman3610” Sinclair’s video from his February 26, 2015 “Naomi Oreskes on Senator Inhofe ” Crocks post, and Peter repeated them again for good measure in his April 21, 2016 “New Video: Surveilling the Scientists” post’s video starting at the 4:04 point and continuing at the 4:25 point. Try to keep up with me on your own beloved material. But tell us, are you actually in denial that Crocks itself repeats Oreskes’ ‘own words’ now? Once again, I and others are indebted to Peter and John Cook for that interview of Oreskes.

            I won’t even bother to reply to “d.o.g.”‘s word comment, apart from noting his predictability of failing to even trying to refute a word I say. It’s ironic how you fellas think I spread lies, since the verbatim text comparisons I offer at my GelbspanFiles blog and in my online articles are from your own dear leaders. In a technical sense, you are calling your own leaders liars. I’m just the messenger comparing what they say side-by-side … and you would readily see this for yourselves (with no help from me) if you would just take the time to extensively read and listen to your own leaders’ material. Speaking of which, y’all will have an even harder time refuting what I’ll be detailing in my Part 2 blog post next week on Oreskes’ claims about exactly when she jumped into her ‘investigation’ of crooked skeptics. Once again, I’ll be quoting directly from …… wait for it ……… …… ………… her own words. Verbatim, with links to the full context on top of that.

            “… scoundrel scientists making money hand over fist …” Two words: Prove it. Be sure to include all that evidence your dear leaders have hidden in their closets of instructions from industry execs on what, when, where, and how to lie, and how the money allotted for this service will be withheld if the lies don’t meet industry approval. Gingerbaker, the people you need to thank for the eventual collapse of the AGW issue are Peter Sinclair to some extent, and Naomi Oreskes to a much larger extent, for her apparent inability to keep her mouth shut about particular damaging details.

          • Gingerbaker Says:

            Jeezum Russell, you completely misunderstood me. I’m thanking you for pointing out how Naomi exposed the V.G.C.T.S.C.T.B.D.G.C. conspiracy. It may have been inadvertent on her part, but such lapses will not be tolerated.

            We are sending out an elite hit squad to take HER out, not you. Chill.

            And I have no idea why you are getting all defensive and shouting “Prove it… Prove it!” once again. You do that a lot, did you realize? Did I accuse you of getting paid over and over again to publish anything but the truth? Of course not!

            Why in the world would the fossil fuel industry pay anybody to tell LIES about how the CO2 from the burning of their product line is harming the environment? Surely, they would want people to tell the truth – even though they would not demand that their payment would in any way be dependent on the writer’s opinion or the veracity of their statements – that would be trying to influence the content of the messages they are paying for. That would be a – dare I say it? – a conspiracy.

            And any rational actor knows that it is the alarmist scientists of the world who are part of the only real conspiracy – the conspiracy to line their pockets with the public’s tax money with their flim flam about CO2 and the Greenhouse Effect and catastrophic global warming.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            “I won’t even bother to reply to “d.o.g.”‘s word comment, apart from noting his predictability of failing to even trying to refute a word I say”, says Russell.

            To make an analogy, I don’t “refute” or otherwise much ponder the occasional “present from the dog world” that I find on my lawn when mowing. Nasty, stinky, offensive stuff—-I just cuss the inconsiderate dog owner that didn’t clean up after his mutt. and remove it. Since I can’t “clean up” Russell’s “presents” here, I am reduced to commenting on them and offering rational and honest analysis. Russell doesn’t like that—-such is the burden of the lying POS—-being exposed for what he is.

            If this were my blog, I would have long ago banned Russell—-IMO he has outlived his usefulness as a bad example, and is now just an irritant. If I want to hear lies from people with no character, I can listen to professionals like Trump and other Republican politicians, or the fossil fuel interests and their paid whores. Russell is an amateur.

        • dumboldguy Says:

          Drive down enough streets in the seedier parts of the cities of this country and you will find a corner populated by whores selling their bodies and their dignity. Some may even be attractive, while others are old, tired, and ugly—-able to make it in the whoring business only because they “sell low” and are willing to do disgusting things that the others won’t.

          That’s an apt analogy for our “old whore” Russell, decked out in his hot pants, mesh stockings, high heels, fright wig, and bright lipstick, standing on a street corner in climate change discussion city and putting out a FOUR-YEAR-OLD article he managed to sell to American Stinky Thinking, that hotbed of right-wing thinking and rationality (forgive the oxymorons). Reading it made my head spin—Russell is one sick puppy.

          Russell does his usual “chuckling” here about how dumb we are and how “enslaved” we are to pointing out how F**Ked up Russell is, and predictably does his “demented chicken strutting in the barnyard” routine for us.

          We “refuse to read any material opposing our viewpoint”, says Russell the whore? Au contraire, Russell, I read a S**T load of your crap and that from other Heartland Whores and Stooges. I think what you meant to say is that we refuse to agree with almost none of it, because it’s not a “viewpoint” based on any facts, but just denialism and whoring for fossil fuels $$$—-mere paid propaganda.

          And I shouldn’t mention Russell and Naomi Oreskes in the same sentence, because Russell is a whore that can’t get anything published beyond delusional articles in third-rate right wing trash publications while Naomi writes real BOOKS that people actually buy (I have a copy of MOD on my shelf), but I want to point out that 97+% of Naomi’s “stories” DO line up, while I am still trying to discover what Russell is really talking about.

          At any rate, as a card-carrying member of the V.G.C.T.S.C.T.B.D.G.C., I have applied to be on the hit team that will visit you soon, Russell Road trip time! (Should I look for you in CA or AZ?).

        • schwadevivre Says:

          We read contradictory reports but as they are utterly unsupported by actual real world evidence or they deliberately misinterpret the evidence we tend to discard them.

        • schwadevivre Says:

          Nope, I’ve commented before, I just do not do so very often. However in your case you are citing American Thinker, a minority blog of right-wing apologists who do very little thinking.

          What AT refers to as critical thinking does nothing to disprove AGW because that so called critical thinking ignores actual data and evidence and substitutes carefully selected anecdote.

  2. dumboldguy Says:

    “Small”? As in “inadequate, meager, insufficient, ungenerous,
    measly, stingy, and pathetic”?

    The Republican platform has a plank saying that coal is clean and supporting its use. Shots of the convention crowd taken during the endless stream of nauseating bullshit spewed by the speakers showed many waving “Trump digs coal” signs.

    I have added a new sticker to the back of the van—left side (on red background) says “Seeing Red?”—-right side (on blue background) says “Vote Blue”. Wish I had a few more of them.

  3. Glen Bennett Says:

    Carbon in our atmosphere… I drive a car with an internal combustion engine. On Monday morning I put 10 gallons of gasoline in the tank. I drive for 1 week. The following Monday I put another 10 gallons of gasoline in the car. Each gallon weighs about 5.6 pounds, times 10 gallons = 56 pounds of matter. Yes it is liquid but there are still molecules and atoms.
    When the gasoline is burned in the cylinders of the ICE, the atoms do not cease to exist. The engine did not convert the matter into energy. I think that can only be done in nuclear reactions. Chemical reactions release heat by combining elements, like oxygen with carbon. Your comzatas have to equal your gozintas. A balanced equation.
    That being the case whence goith my 56 pounds (times how many millions of automobiles etc.) of matter? And we humans have been doing this for how long?
    No such thing as anthropomorphic global warming? My head hurts.

    • dumboldguy Says:

      Your math is a little off. A gallon of gasoline typically weighs a bit over 6 pounds but the important thing is the comzatas—-that when it’s burned each gallon produces 20 pounds of carbon dioxide. You alone are producing 200 pounds of CO2 every week (along with some other non-beneficial compounds).

      You ask “whence goeth” your garbage? It “goeth” into the atmosphere, and some of it is later absorbed by the oceans. If your “gasoline” is produced from fossil fuels, there is NO “balance” in the equation—-it goes to the increase in GHG and the resulting AGW. Your head SHOULD hurt.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: